At 01:29 PM 07/11/2001, aardvark wrote: >download Lynx, view that site, read it aloud... > >you could also get a browser for the disabled, but Lynx is a good >one to have for a myriad of reasons... > >i'd much rather see a page of: > >"Welcome to Foobar" > >than: > >[IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE]"Welcome to >Foobar"[IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE >][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE] > >and if that can be achieved by using (valid and correct) empty alt >attributes in all my image tags, then you can be darn sure i'm >going to include them... I see . . . I guess I'll shift my frustration away from the W3C and towards the browser makers - it just seems to me that if a browser can not display an image, and there's no alt text, it should ignore the image altogether, and display nothing. I can't think of a single circumstance in which a browser telling you [IMAGE] is of any use whatsoever, and it seems a little silly to me that we have to include extra code in every image tag to avoid this. Cheers, Noah.